The Tubman $20: A Failed Shit Test

I hate to say I told you so, but this is where we are.

When the news was announced last June that Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury and cartographer of the American economy as we know it, would be removed in favor of a woman, I knew immediately that it wouldn’t be good enough. The impetus behind putting a woman on the bill came from a tiny group called “Women On 20s.” As the name implies, this group wanted to see a woman on the $20 bill and wanted to replace Andrew Jackson. In other words, a woman on the $20 bill and Jackson off, and nothing but a woman on the $20 bill and Jackson off, would have been satisfactory.

This was the shit test. The purpose of a shit test, as men who date a lot of girls know, is to assuage your manly fortitude. They are attempts to get you off your frame, your masculine leadership. They can be innocuous or they can be malicious. Sometimes women don’t even know they’re doing them. The purpose is to see if you’re the real deal – a strong leader – or a weak, vacillating boy. If you can’t even lead her, how can you possibly be in control of your own reality?

Women on 20s shit test Harriet Tubman $20
This may as well be the slogan of Women on 20s.

By acquiescing to the demand, by breaking frame, Jack Lew, the current treasury secretary, failed the shit test. A strange thing seemingly happens when you give in to these demands – you lose respect. Far from your supplication being pleasing, just the opposite occurs. That’s because people inherently despise weakness.

In regards to shit tests, they are often of a scizophrenic nature. The tests contradict each other when you acquiesce. She’ll demand one thing, you acquiesce, and then she demands the opposite. Nothing will ever be good enough. I have second hand experience with this because I grew up watching my father constantly acquiesce, and lose respect doing so. My father was a great teacher in seduction in that he taught me what not to do. The only way to blow past these tests is to maintain your frame.

Jack Lew broke frame last year by saying a woman would be front and center on the $10 bill and Alexander Hamilton would relegated to a sideshow. While the “Womenon20s” group accepted this, they still wanted a woman to be on the $20 bill. In other words, they weren’t satisfied. It was as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

After a backlash to the proposed change, helped in great part by the Broadway hit Hamilton, a play starring minority actors in white roles which would be called “cultural appropriation” by this same crowd if the context had been reversed, Lew reneged on his decision to remove Hamilton from the front of the $10 bill. Hamilton now apparently has “social justice” cred. Lew still however, has plans to give feminists their due on the $10 bill with a design change on the back by giving an homage to the women’s suffrage movement. This plan was expanded for the redesign of the $5 bill, which would feature two women (including Eleanor Roosevelt) at the Lincoln Memorial, along with Martin Luther King.

Again as predictably as a thrown object falling back to the ground, the feminists who originally wanted women on the $20 bill are now complaining that taking a woman off the front of the $10 bill overhaul and placing her portraiture on the back would send the wrong message. Our special snowflakes are also unhappy with the time delay:

Lew has for several weeks hinted, without saying explicitly, that the U.S. could keep Hamilton as the only face of the $10, while weaving pictures of women into the backs of $10s and $5s and eventually putting out $20s that carry a woman’s face. This scenario would allow Lew to say the U.S. is giving women more exposure by putting women on three denominations rather than one.

The Treasury had no immediate comment on its latest deliberations.

Kim B. said she and her daughter don’t see it that way. Neither does “Women on 20s,” the group that led that initial nationwide campaign. These women say if rescinding plans for the $10 delays the debut of a woman on the front of any U.S. paper currency, it would send the wrong message to girls and women. Women on 20s has been supportive of a woman sharing the face of the $10 with Hamilton, but the group also wants new $20s with a woman replacing Jackson to be produced simultaneously with the new $10s. Sofia’s mother said she wants to avoid delays to having a woman on the face of a bill.

A separate group, the Girls’ Lounge, started a White House petition on April 13 to compel Treasury to keep its commitment to put a woman on the front of the $10 and created a Twitter hashtag – #NotGoingBack – to raise attention. Sofia and her mom signed the petition, said Kim B.

Susan Ades Stone, executive director of Women on 20s, said what she fears is that Lew would send an unintended message if he reneges on plans to put a woman on the $10. It would show girls, she said, that, “Men make these choices. Men push women aside when push comes to shove. Men still tell us who we should be honoring and how.”

It also apparently takes too much effort to turn the bill over to look at the back:

The idea of including women in a mural on the back of a bill has been called into question.

“It will take a microscope to see who those individuals are, and we’ll be left with another decade or more of woefully inadequate representation of women and their worth,” wrote the group Women on 20s in an open letter to Lew, published by Time.

“Nobody looks at the back of the bill, and that’s not likely to change,” the group wrote. “A vignette without a woman’s portrait on the front of the bill (even if she must share with Hamilton) will be seen as a token gesture and an affront to Americans of all ages who are expecting you to reveal your choice of a singular woman based on their input. As a friend of ours put it, relegating women to the back of the bill is akin to sending them to the back of the bus. The Rosa Parks analogies are inevitable.”

Women on 20s shit test Harriet Tubman Andrew Jackson

So not only do our special snowflakes want a woman on the $20, they’re now demanding that the $10 plan proceed as scheduled, and that both new bills proceed quickly, regardless of any security concerns in the designs, because “misogyny” or “racism,” in the Rosa Parks analogy.

This “Women on 20s” group is sparkling with arrogance and entitlement. They truly do believe that they are entitled to all of their demands, and that neither the Treasury Department or the people at large have the right to any contrary opinion, lest they be “misogynists.” This is a very malicious type of shit test, and if you encounter this type out there, it’s one in which you’re better served not bothering. No girl is worth such a hassle. The cowardly stiffs that we call our leaders would do well to learn such a lesson. Unsurprisingly, when the Treasury Department acquiesced, the demands not only abated, but grew stronger, and the posture of disrespect with it.

When will our cucked leaders finally learn that all of these “social justice” pushes are shit tests and they shouldn’t be given any attention?

As for the heart of the matter, I have this to say. Harriet Tubman is worthy of the deepest respect, but how many American women know who she is? How many will learn about her life and apply her lessons to their own? If the goal of this project is to give women an easily visible role model, is this means likely to serve that end, or will the American female population likely get a cheap dopamine high and then go on with their iPhones and their Starbucks?

And while Harriet Tubman’s accomplishments are great, they simply aren’t comparable to the men currently on the currency, including Andrew Jackson, who ushered in a new age of American democracy. If you follow the logic that Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill because of his being a slave owner, then you also need to remove George Washington from the $1 bill and quarter and Thomas Jefferson from the nickel. If you want to remove Jackson from the $20 bill because of the Indian Removal Act, you also need to remove essentially any pre-20th century president. Indian removal and deportation didn’t start with Andrew Jackson and didn’t stop with him.

The truth of the matter is that Harriet Tubman wasn’t chosen because of her accomplishments. She was chosen because she was a woman, and only because she was a woman. In truth, it’s an insult. If the goal was to honor someone who was instrumental in the advancement of black Americans, Martin Luther King would be the obvious choice. Yet, because he’s a man, his accomplishments weren’t even considered.

But I digress. All this brouhaha over the $10 or $20 bill was, once more, a shit test. This “Women on 20s” group broke the Treasury’s frame and now they’re demanding more. They don’t respect the Treasury or anyone else. They want who they want on the money and if you acquiesce, it not only won’t be good enough, but they’ll secretly hate you more for your weakness.

This was a particularly malicious shit test. Most aren’t like this. In fact, the name “shit test” is generally too strong. A “frame test” might be a better term, as they are usually mainly innocent, flirtatious ways for women to see if their prospective men are leaders or vacillating supplicators. In fact, these frame battle games are one of the foundations of flirting.

If you want to be a better flirt and obtain a stronger frame to ascend the social hierarchy, it’s best to learn from the master. The master right now is Donald Trump, who has the strongest frame I’ve ever seen. To get a stronger frame, read Stumped: How Trump Triumphed.